Team Sky's whole shtick is that what differentiates them is the marginal gains. Taking care of the 1% issues that other teams don't bother with. That (IMO) is a complete contrast to the current line of "we tried to organise a piss up in a brewery and couldn't manage it". Our Dr has lost the notes, we have no records, all that triamcinolone wasn't for us, no we didn't order T patches.

If this was a Spanish team not many would give them the benefit of the doubt. I think at the very best they have blurred the lines between using drugs they're allowed to use, albeit with a TUE when needed, but that there wasn't really a medical need but a performance need and being actually clean. Actually clean being you can use the drugs when there's an actual medical need.

They drastically improved results after hiring Geert Leinders.

I didnt see a witch hunt aimed at the supposedly super clean Garmin team when Danielson tested positive or Astana (pro tour, conti and women's positives in recent years!) , Moviestar , Contador and his beef, Valverde, Ex dopers running teams so I'm not sure I get the point that if this was another country as they seem to be getting away with real doping and not just the fact TUE's were applied for.

Russia has a state sponsored doping program and covered it by breaking into labs and swapping samples, Jamaica...the less said the better, Kenyans training in remote mountain locations with no way of being tested but all we are debating is Team Sky applying for TUE's and one package that was delivered 6 years ago.

That's kind of my point. No one suspected Astana or Movistar were clean did they? I totally agree with you on the East African and Jamaican runners and I would include the NOP ones too.

I believe many give Sky a pass because they're British, strongly linked with British Cycling and their excellent marketing around the marginal gains. Even now my brother is convinced they're clean and he's loosely followed cycling for years. It's like with Lance the story was so good you want to believe it.

I see going after someone/team when there is no evidence as witch hunt. When there are clearly questions to answer around dodgy practices it's fair game to me. (I don't mean no evidence because you've lost it)

It is a fact that Wiggins received 3 injections of a PED on the WADA banned list, before three Grand Tour starts. The injections were administered with the intention of increasing his physiological capacity at the TdF and Giro d'Italia.

The question, is whether Wiggins' TUE for Triamcinolone can be genuinely justified, not least the timing right before major events.

He doped with the permission of the UCI. How much do we trust the UCI during those years (2011-13)

But that's a very different fact pattern to US Postal, who just did what they wanted behind closed doors, and when caught either paid people off or retrospectively fabricated prescriptions.

Being open and honest about what you want to do, making the correct applications, and having it all documented (to the extent it can then be hacked into a shared publicly), is totally different. You don't ask, you don't get, and if the multiple independent doctors signed off on the request, then why would Sky/Wiggins not avail themselves of what has been approved?

I definitely agree it was suspicious timing wise, which is why I do see an argument for a public database of this stuff. Why not if its only going to be released via hacking anyway? And at least then the kangaroo court can play out in real time. Probably the biggest black mark against Sky in my book is their refusal to sign up to MPCC - as if so, Wiggins wouldn't have been able to ride under the code of that voluntary agreement.

Add Froome's win in the Tour of Romandie to that.

ETA: Cookson used to be part of the holding company that owns Team Sky didn't he?

I believe many give Sky a pass because they're British, strongly linked with British Cycling and their excellent marketing around the marginal gains. Even now my brother is convinced they're clean and he's loosely followed cycling for years. It's like with Lance the story was so good you want to believe it.

(I don't mean no evidence because you've lost it)

So you actually DON'T think they are clean ?

I mean in a pure sense, they have clearly pushed boundaries, and maybe Broken them, either legally or morally. But you seem to be suggesting a pure Dirty team in a very real way, such as Postal.

For me the jury is out but I lean toward the still clean. I struggle to believe a team can be SO utterly brazen in their "No Doping" stance while all the while actively doping.

Refuting accusations ala Postal is one thing but actively marketing your team as the 1 pure zero tolerance team, while all riders are juicing up is just a bit far for me. Stretching certain rules to breaking point maybe but not out and out doping.

Of course as in all things Cycling/Sport while I may be disappointed to find the truth is something else I wouldn't be surprised....

I believe many give Sky a pass because they're British, strongly linked with British Cycling and their excellent marketing around the marginal gains. Even now my brother is convinced they're clean and he's loosely followed cycling for years. It's like with Lance the story was so good you want to believe it.

(I don't mean no evidence because you've lost it)

So you actually DON'T think they are clean ?

I mean in a pure sense, they have clearly pushed boundaries, and maybe Broken them, either legally or morally. But you seem to be suggesting a pure Dirty team in a very real way, such as Postal.

For me the jury is out but I lean toward the still clean. I struggle to believe a team can be SO utterly brazen in their "No Doping" stance while all the while actively doping.

Refuting accusations ala Postal is one thing but actively marketing your team as the 1 pure zero tolerance team, while all riders are juicing up is just a bit far for me. Stretching certain rules to breaking point maybe but not out and out doping.

Of course as in all things Cycling/Sport while I may be disappointed to find the truth is something else I wouldn't be surprised....

No I don't. I don't think that the timing of their improvement and the hiring of Geert Leinders are coincidental. The only thing he seems to have ever done there was way Chris Froome once.

I just don't buy Chris Froome's improvement from very average to World beater, if he could climb or TT maybe but the way he does both and the dramatic improvement??? The only rider I can think of that has done similar is Armstrong. Most of the greats arrive at a GT aged 23 or so and scare the living daylights out of the established contenders.

The first reason given for his improvement was Bilharzia. He gives credit to Michelle for getting him off the bread and doughnuts to eating avocado and smoked salmon and losing weight. Where have he heard a similar explanation?

I believe many give Sky a pass because they're British, strongly linked with British Cycling and their excellent marketing around the marginal gains. Even now my brother is convinced they're clean and he's loosely followed cycling for years. It's like with Lance the story was so good you want to believe it.

(I don't mean no evidence because you've lost it)

So you actually DON'T think they are clean ?

I mean in a pure sense, they have clearly pushed boundaries, and maybe Broken them, either legally or morally. But you seem to be suggesting a pure Dirty team in a very real way, such as Postal.

For me the jury is out but I lean toward the still clean. I struggle to believe a team can be SO utterly brazen in their "No Doping" stance while all the while actively doping.

Refuting accusations ala Postal is one thing but actively marketing your team as the 1 pure zero tolerance team, while all riders are juicing up is just a bit far for me. Stretching certain rules to breaking point maybe but not out and out doping.

Of course as in all things Cycling/Sport while I may be disappointed to find the truth is something else I wouldn't be surprised....

No I don't. I don't think that the timing of their improvement and the hiring of Geert Leinders are coincidental. The only thing he seems to have ever done there was way Chris Froome once.

I just don't buy Chris Froome's improvement from very average to World beater, if he could climb or TT maybe but the way he does both and the dramatic improvement??? The only rider I can think of that has done similar is Armstrong. Most of the greats arrive at a GT aged 23 or so and scare the living daylights out of the established contenders.

The first reason given for his improvement was Bilharzia. He gives credit to Michelle for getting him off the bread and doughnuts to eating avocado and smoked salmon and losing weight. Where have he heard a similar explanation?

Well After recently re-reading the Armstrong thread on here, I am going to respectfully disagree with you, but firmly acknowledge you could be quite right.

Its interesting someone wrote on there that Time will always be the give away. It always is with most conspiracy theories and things of this nature. Self interest and money, keep people quiet but as time wears on that self interest changes and wanes and people speak out.

The truth will out eventually, as it did with Postal.

It just seems too much in this instance, for me to accept the level of hypocrisy.

It will be interesting to hear SKY's (the company) take on all this. After all team SKY's reputation is in "Tatters". No One will believe a team SKY result anymore. What interest do SKY actually have anymore continuing to plough millions into the team?

If they were dirty to the core, those medical records wouldn't have gone missing. They would have been fake, but they would have existed.

thats my take on this whole thing. Postal had dotted their i's and crossed their fake T's on everything and when they didnt they paid and bullied to keep it quiet. The fact this is all so amateur leads me to believe they are "clean" (as in havent stepped over the legal line) but incompetent.
_________________Blog

Just to add SGreg. I would be happy to be wrong and don't dislike Froome on a personal level despite always cheering Quintana. I love watching climbers and would prefer to watch the little Andean guys win.

I thought his tweet of his lovely meal was comedy gold while the other were giving their 100% DB backing.

If they were dirty to the core, those medical records wouldn't have gone missing. They would have been fake, but they would have existed.

thats my take on this whole thing. Postal had dotted their i's and crossed their fake T's on everything and when they didnt they paid and bullied to keep it quiet. The fact this is all so amateur leads me to believe they are "clean" (as in havent stepped over the legal line) but incompetent.

Does that "we're a bit amateur" line tally with their "look at our bus", "look at our mattresses", "other teams have their chimps running things", etc? Having it both ways is just illogical to me.

If they were dirty to the core, those medical records wouldn't have gone missing. They would have been fake, but they would have existed.

thats my take on this whole thing. Postal had dotted their i's and crossed their fake T's on everything and when they didnt they paid and bullied to keep it quiet. The fact this is all so amateur leads me to believe they are "clean" (as in havent stepped over the legal line) but incompetent.

Does that "we're a bit amateur" line tally with their "look at our bus", "look at our mattresses", "other teams have their chimps running things", etc? Having it both ways is just illogical to me.

not saying it's right that they haven't got the info, just saying that the fact they haven't got all this means its more likely they've screwed up than actually running a sophisticated team wide doping program ala USP.
_________________Blog

No I don't. I don't think that the timing of their improvement and the hiring of Geert Leinders are coincidental. The only thing he seems to have ever done there was way Chris Froome once.
I just don't buy Chris Froome's improvement from very average to World beater, if he could climb or TT maybe but the way he does both and the dramatic improvement??? The only rider I can think of that has done similar is Armstrong. Most of the greats arrive at a GT aged 23 or so and scare the living daylights out of the established contenders.

The first reason given for his improvement was Bilharzia. He gives credit to Michelle for getting him off the bread and doughnuts to eating avocado and smoked salmon and losing weight. Where have he heard a similar explanation?

I've stated this before on here. When Froome went to the UCI centre for development athletes, his testing was off the scale. There was a documentary where the doctor there at the time said his readings were some of the highest they had ever recorded.

His main issue was he had no idea how to ride, having not been part of any road racing scene for his entire youth. He paid for himself to go to the 2006 World Championships TT, made his own Kenyan jersey, and crashed coming off the starting podium. Yet he finished only just over 90s behind a young Tony Martin, which says to me he had a natural engine.

When he started road racing, he was apparently hitting the floor every 5 minutes. So he was basically years and years behind in his development as a racer - regardless of his athletic capabilities. Then you add in the Bilharzia as you mention.

Armstrong was totally different. He'd been racing on the circuit (in the US) since he was a kid, and was a World Champion. And whilst he clearly cheated as he's admitted, I still think the stark change in his ability to climb was a result of the cancer. As he said himself, he went into hospital as a muscular one day specialist (who was already doping) and had won a rainbow jersey. He came out having lost all his muscle mass, and despite regaining his fitness and actually most of his power, he could never regain the muscle. That was what enabled him to suddenly climb and become a GC contender. Sure he cheated, but if it hadnt been for the cancer, I think he would be a minor blip on the radar of Classics specialists (who cheated).

If they were dirty to the core, those medical records wouldn't have gone missing. They would have been fake, but they would have existed.

thats my take on this whole thing. Postal had dotted their i's and crossed their fake T's on everything and when they didnt they paid and bullied to keep it quiet. The fact this is all so amateur leads me to believe they are "clean" (as in havent stepped over the legal line) but incompetent.

Does that "we're a bit amateur" line tally with their "look at our bus", "look at our mattresses", "other teams have their chimps running things", etc? Having it both ways is just illogical to me.

Bear in mind that they aren't claiming that the medical records didn't exist, but that they weren't backed up.

It still smells really odd when combined with the accidental testosterone delivery. (I mean who among us hasn't had one of those?) But it doesn't feel like a team wide conspiracy.
_________________I don't need an attitude

No I don't. I don't think that the timing of their improvement and the hiring of Geert Leinders are coincidental. The only thing he seems to have ever done there was way Chris Froome once.
I just don't buy Chris Froome's improvement from very average to World beater, if he could climb or TT maybe but the way he does both and the dramatic improvement??? The only rider I can think of that has done similar is Armstrong. Most of the greats arrive at a GT aged 23 or so and scare the living daylights out of the established contenders.

The first reason given for his improvement was Bilharzia. He gives credit to Michelle for getting him off the bread and doughnuts to eating avocado and smoked salmon and losing weight. Where have he heard a similar explanation?

I've stated this before on here. When Froome went to the UCI centre for development athletes, his testing was off the scale. There was a documentary where the doctor there at the time said his readings were some of the highest they had ever recorded.

His main issue was he had no idea how to ride, having not been part of any road racing scene for his entire youth. He paid for himself to go to the 2006 World Championships TT, made his own Kenyan jersey, and crashed coming off the starting podium. Yet he finished only just over 90s behind a young Tony Martin, which says to me he had a natural engine.

When he started road racing, he was apparently hitting the floor every 5 minutes. So he was basically years and years behind in his development as a racer - regardless of his athletic capabilities. Then you add in the Bilharzia as you mention.

Armstrong was totally different. He'd been racing on the circuit (in the US) since he was a kid, and was a World Champion. And whilst he clearly cheated as he's admitted, I still think the stark change in his ability to climb was a result of the cancer. As he said himself, he went into hospital as a muscular one day specialist (who was already doping) and had won a rainbow jersey. He came out having lost all his muscle mass, and despite regaining his fitness and actually most of his power, he could never regain the muscle. That was what enabled him to suddenly climb and become a GC contender. Sure he cheated, but if it hadnt been for the cancer, I think he would be a minor blip on the radar of Classics specialists (who cheated).

I don't want to derail this thread discussing Froome, that can wait to the annual TdF thread in July, his results were v good but not knock it out the park LeMond good. (2007 results: VO2 max 80ml/kg, FTP 420W).